[] Question about translation of Romans 13:8 Sharon VanDevender shavandev at hotmail.com Fri Apr 20 21:23:31 EDT 2007 The other translation problem in Romans 13 is the word “authority” (exousia). …. reason is that doing good in this context means fulfilling the law (Rom 13:8-10). Romans 13:8-14 Be under obligation to no one – the…

Lk.23:45 Ted Mann theomann at earthlink.net Tue Oct 9 11:54:11 EDT 2001 Luke 7:39 Lk.23:45 When Luke wrote EKLIPONTOS (Lk.23:45), did he have in mind an actual solareclipse, as a number of translations imply (e.g., Phillips, NEB), or wasthis just an idiomatic way of describing the darkening of the sun (e.g.,NIV, NASB), without intending…

Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI jerker karlsson jerker_k at hotmail.com Tue Nov 27 14:30:41 EST 2001 SU as part of a vocative? Use of MH Hi!I am near the completion of an essay on Paul and natural theology, but have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI in Romans 1:…

Romans 1:17 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com Mon Aug 5 18:25:57 EDT 2002 IOKOBOS to JAMES Romans 1:17 This verse has been oft discussed on . Go to Feb. and following in 1996 for a good string.What follows is a good posting from Edward Hobbs.[Since the meaning of Romans 1:17 has come up…

My question concerns the last prepositional phrase εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην, The first prepositional phrase used the same construction, the preposition eis with the articular infinitive. The first phrase would seem to express the purpose of God in making Abraham the father of all who believe. Should the second phrase be understood as purpose or result, or is there some overlap in the two? Should the second phrase be applied to all those who believe, or should it be construed as the first phrase with the purpose of God. If the former, unbelievers would want to believe (one supposes) for the purpose of being imputed righteousness, but the fact that they do believe indicates that as a result they are imputed righteousness.

As the context must govern the referent it would make sense that εΦ ω would signify ‘upon which’ rather than ‘upon whom’ for three major reasons.

1. Though Hebrews speaks of Levi being in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes, the immediate context of Romans 5 does not speak of our pre-existence in Adam but it does speak of our helpless sinful condition, verse 6, 8 and possibly verse 10. Therefore, verse 12 may easily be seen as explaining the reason why we are sinful which speaks of inheriting a sinful condition.

2. The following 2 verses do not speak of sin at the time of the fall but the condition of sin when there was no law. The whole discourse concerns the committing of sin by people and the mastery of death over people who sin. The idea of inheriting guilt would therefore be of secondary importance and tangential to the whole discussion Paul is expounding.

3. There is a logical progression, which makes sense in light of the context. Not a simple chiasmus that has the last point returning back to the same event mentioned in the first point. Not.

A. One man sins. B. Sin came into the world. C. Death came into the world through sin. B’. Death spread to all men. A’. In Adam all sinned.

Rather A- B’ show a consequential progression and so it would make sense that as B’ is a consequence of C that A’ is also a consequence of B’. Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2.

Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of ‘היצר הרע’ ‘hayetser Hara’ or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam’s sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam’s sin when we sin in like manner.

Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting.

Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the “upon which” argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans (BECNT). Though this is not conclusive regarding the referent in the passage it does raise questions concerning the strength of the argument itself when one whose theology has been heavily influenced by a reformed soteriology disregards the referent that more clearly supports the reformed position even though the interpretation that he sided with does not in itself contradict a reformed understanding of original sin.

Talk about resurrection, this is quite an old thread. Please note that on B-Greek we focus on on issues of grammar and syntax, understanding the Greek as Greek, and not issues of theology. In this case of Romans 5:12, what tips it for me is not the theological content, but that the phrase is really a stock phrase used adverbially elsewhere, and particularly in the plural, ἐφ οἷς, but not unknown in the singular. Now, whether it’s consecutive or causal is a matter of some debate in the history of interpretation. This article by Cranfield is supposed to be quite exhaustive on the subject:

“On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324–41

But I can’t comment further since the Scottish Journal of Theology is not accessible through JSTOR (the first time I’ve been let down on that regard).

Several translations seem to translate κατά “just as”, giving a nice parallelism:***But can κατά really bend that way? Can you think of similar constructions where it is used like this? Or is there another justification for this kind of translation?

Translations are best thought of more of a guide to how someone interpreted the text rather than a commentary on the grammatical structures per se of the source text.

Of course, but translations seem to follow two very different ways of understanding this particular text. And these two different interpretations seem to be found in commentaries as well.

One interpretation takes ἅγιον to be a substantive, the other takes it to be a predicate complement.

A more literal ‘translation’ would be something like “in accordance with the holy one who called you” and even that does certain transformations like participle to relative clause, adding a “one” to substantive the adjective, etc. These transformations only become problematic with they seem to depart from fidelity to the sense of the source.

That’s a more literal translation of this interpretation (the one shown in my last post):

κατὰ

τὸν+

v.part καλέσαντα o ὑμᾶς

ἅγιον

And that agrees with Meyer, as quoted above. NET and NASB both understand the Greek text this way. Here is NASB:

NASB wrote:but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;

I think I’ve persuaded myself that I like this understanding best. But ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, KJV, etc. are based on a different understanding of the Greek text. Here is ESV:

ESV wrote:but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,

That seems to follow this understanding of the text:

+ ἀλλὰ

κατὰ

s τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς pc ἅγιον

s καὶ αὐτοὶ pc ἅγιοι + ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ v γενήθητε

Expositor’s Greek argues for this interpretation:

Expositor’s Greek wrote:—ἅγιον is better taken as predicate than as substantive, since ὁ καλέσας (καλῶν) is well-established as a title of God in His relation to Gentile Christians (cf. 1 Peter 2:9, etc.)

The participles you point out would be considered “elaborations” and their function is to provide more information about the main verb. They are not intended to interact with the time of the context (just that of the main verb) or to introduce a new event time into the discourse. In Wallace’s terms, they would be classified as a circumstance participle of manner or something like that.

I am a concrete thinker, so part of what I am looking for is a clear understanding of the relationship between the topics at various levels – the sentence topic and the discourse topic in this passage, for instance.

As far as I can tell, there’s no simple relation between the two. They’re different things. The fact that they share the term “topic” seems to be creating expectations they are more closely related, but they are not.

I really do think I’ve heard some other people imply that there is a closer relationship than that, but those people may be confused too.

Lambrecht’s books has been very popular and influential. He provides (his own) definitions for topic and focus. It is similar to what Levinsohn is doing, but not identical. I think Levinsohn follows Simon Dik more (whom I haven’t read). So does Helma Dik.

I have Simon Dik’s book. It is very clearly written, I should work my way through it.

Levinsohn has actually published quite a bit. To understand him, that’s the first and best place to go. His coursebook, though dated, lays out several of the concepts, but he’s been updating them in other publications. Many of these are on his website. If you can read Spanish, you may find his introduction to his Galatians analysis helpful.

Thanks, I’ll look there. My … Spanish … is not great. But that kind of technical Spanish may or may not be possible.

ronsnider1 wrote:My question relates to how one understands and classifies the genitive string in Romans 1:23 that follows the en clause. The entire phrase relates to that which was exchanged for the glory of the incorruptible God, but I am having a little trouble identifying the type of genitives used here.

It’s pretty clear, I’d say, that εἰκόνος depends upon ὁμοιώματι and that φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν all depend upon εἰκόνος. I would think too that φθαρτοῦ, although linked directly with ἀνθρώπου, is implicitly understood also with the other genitive nouns as well. The four genitive nouns dependent on εἰκόνος all fall under the most basic category of adnominal genitives, whether you call it “possessive” or “genitive of belonging”. Categorizing the adnominal linkage of εικόνος to ὁμοιώματι is perhaps less clearcut (if it really matters — the meaning of the phrase is hardly in doubt!); I think I’d call it an “appositive” or “explanatory” genitive (cf. Smyth, §1322): “a likeness, i.e. an image of … “.

Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 11:29 amJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 6:01 amI don’t want this to get lost – Timothy is correct here, and this is the one direct response to the question in the OP.ταυτη is not referring back to …